Americans are not on Mars, never went to the moon too

[petepan]

bigbrain said <font color="yellow">Joining the “feet” of lunar module with rectilinear lines we have found that the height of camera was taller than astronaut helmet.</font><br /><br />So, would you care to post a picture showing how this demonstrates what you claim?<br /><br />And please stop using your caps lock, its rude you know <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Olyv Oyl is flat. The moon is not.</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Joining the “feet” of lunar module with rectilinear lines <b>we</b> have found that the height of camera was taller than astronaut helmet.</font><br /><br />Ah ha! "We"...so there is more than one bigbrain involved in this. Interesting...care to let us in on who the other contributors are?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">I HOPE YOU ARE ENOUGH INTELLIGENT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IMAGE IS FAKED BECAUSE THE IDIOT PRODUCER HAS TAKEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH OF LUNAR MODULE AT A HEIGHT OF 2 METERS OR MORE TO ENLARGE THE MOON SURFACE, IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASTRONAUT. THIS IS MY DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT IMAGE IS FAKED. </font><br /><br />First of all, <font color="red"> Stop Shouting!</font>It's rude.<br /><br />Secondly, the following is from http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/buzzaldrin1969.html<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Let us talk about camera height! The conspiracy believers say that the 'head height' camera position can be proved mathematically.<br /><br />One of my pet hates is when people state opinion as fact, therefore the camera has been suggested - not proven, if you have read Dr David Groves statement in David Percy's - Dark Moon, he does not say he has proven anything ( as any self respecting PhD holder would do ), he suggests a hypothesis based on certain conditions. His calculations are based on a level surface. The evidence from various sources suggests that the ground is not level! <br /><br />If you read Apollo 11 - The NASA Mission Reports Volume 1 page 218, it states that the "LM attitude on the surface was tilted 4.5° from the vertical" this ties in with the photographs below: </font>Note: the photo you used as "proof" is one of two used as illustrations.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />Using David Groves calculations, if you correct them with the surface being at 4.5° this makes a difference of approx 300 mm over the distance Armstrong is from Aldrin, bringing the head height camera position down to say about chest height.<br /><br />Secondly Dr Groves calculations suggest a camera height of between 1446 mm and 1527 mm, Armstrong was 5 ft 11 inch which puts the camera at throat height on level ground, not head height, before the corrections for an sloped surface. The mi</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[votefornimitz]

I was just trying to prove him right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="color:#993366">In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves...</span> </div>

 

[bigbrain]

To the moon you were able to go with a computer of 32k memory, by that old crock, that ugly piece of metal called “Lunar Module” thrust from the bottom, difficult to balance like a coke can on your finger.<br /><br />To Mars you have been able to go even if you can see neither Mars nor your probe, driving it to a target 500 million kilometres distant in the darkness of universe thanks to a software able to drive your probe looking at the stars<br /><br />All the images of the moon and of Mars are real even if the horizons are too close and clear, even if in some pictures Mars looks like a cucumber or like a plastic balloon. <br />The wrong height of the horizon line of that image is due to the disconnected moon surface.<br /><br />Right? Right as Mars is a cucumber.<br /><br />I need patience with you. <br /><br />Then go to this image:<br />http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html <br />11-pg2 Image AS11-40-5930 <br /><br />I am sure you have studied perspective this night.<br />Well, the sun projects shadows and, because the sun is very distant, shadows are parallel.<br /><br />Look carefully to that image. The strange thing is the astronaut shadow that does not connect in the right way to terrain disconnections and shows a strange halo.<br />You will say: no, it is all right.<br /><br />Ok. I need patience with you.<br /><br />No, it is not all right, because the astronaut shadow ought to project towards the left as the lunar module shadow. Also the stones ought to project their shadow on the left.<br />The astronaut shadow is unnatural and stones shadows are wrong.<br />Why? Because in the studio there are several spot lights.<br />

 

[eosophobiac]

Some people just do not have the frontal lobe capacity to stop what they are doing....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bigbrain]

Why? What am I doing?

 

[Leovinus]

Here is the picture you referenced: <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Obviously, this was taken with a wide-angle lens so that rock shadows on the left point right and rock shadows on the right point to the left. <br /><br />I think you are using the old "point light source" argument: Because the shadows aren't parallel, there must be multiple light sources. If that were the case, you'd have multiple shadows for each object -- something not present in this picture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Try this....<br /><br />http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Well that link certainly disproved bigbrain's latest attempt at evidence better than I could do.<br /><br />Ok, senior bigbrain, what is your next evidence? You're 0 for 2 so far. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bigbrain]

Hey, go to:<br />http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html <br />Image AS12-46-6793<br /><br />Has this shadow connected in the right way to the disconnections of the lunar surface?<br />Wide-angle lens deform images but maintain their naturalness.<br />

 

[Leovinus]

Your referenced picture: <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Try this...<br /><br />http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html<br /><br />(I have officially added this site to my list of favorites.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

That looks ok to me. Sun is behind astronaut and camera is in center of chest. Shadow is projected onto irregular surface, but since camera is in center of figure creating the shadow the irregularities of the shadow aren't readily apparent at the shadow edges. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Nice job. OK, so bigbrain is 0 for 3.<br /><br />What's next? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[votefornimitz]

The parralel shadow theory has been debunked bigbrain, shadows have to do with the terrain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="color:#993366">In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves...</span> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Leo, he's taking these "issues", almost in sequence, from here, I think:<br /><br />http://www.clavius.org/index.html<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[petepan]

<font color="yellow"> Olyv Oyl </font>... is that the Popeye one? <br /><br />if so, <i> i thought it was "Olive" </i>?

 

[telfrow]

It's the "Popeye" dialect...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[bigbrain]

As I have said, I am not interested in shadows.<br />I repeat:<br />The earth runs at 108,000 kph around the sun along its orbit, Mars does almost the same along another orbit, you can't see your probe, you can't see Mars but you are able to drive your probe to a target of 500 million kilometers distant. <br /><br />Suppose your probe can transmit a radio signal (really impossible: it has not enough power) to your control tower. <br /><br />How can they locate where is your probe receiving only a radio signal from the infinite universe? <br /><br />To go to Mars is not a matter of science fiction. <br /><br />I'm sorry but you never went to the moon. Also lunar landing was a movie. <br /><br />All those who say Americans never went to the moon till now have talked about wrong shadows, no stars, too short horizons in moon landing images and they are right, but no one has talked about the most important reason of Apollo hoax. <br /><br />Helicopters are not too easy to fly. They can fly them because the thrust is on the top and gravity forces act under the rotor, the pivot point, and act as counterpoise to engine thrust. <br /><br />The lunar module has a rocket engine on the bottom and gravity forces act above it and tend to turn it upside-down in all directions. <br /><br />No one would have been able in 1969, without the powerful computers of today, to keep lunar module vertical for 14 kilometres before landing because the pilot had to be able to react continuously to those gravity forces that made lunar module enormously unstable. <br /><br />Human reactions are to slow to oppose to those gravity forces that have their pivot point in the rocket engine on the bottom. <br /><br />If you try to balance a broom on your finger you will see it is enough easy and it is easier if the broom has a longer broomstick. Why? Because the barycentre is very distant from your finger and it is aligned to the broomstick. <br /><br />Try to balance a toothpick. It’s impossible because the barycentre is too

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">As I have said, I am not interested in shadows.</font><br /><br />Right. That's the reason you posted the photos. <br /><br />Translation: I can't respond so I'll change my argument. (Where have we heard <i>that</i> before, hmmm?)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">THESE ARE MY DEFINITIVE PROOFS THAT YOU ARE NOT ON MARS AND NEVER WENT TO THE MOON TOO. </font><br /><br />Uh, yeah. <br /><br />And thanks for taking our advice about <font color="red">Not Shouting</font> <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I really didn't want to get back into this intellectually disadvantaged thread. However, as our moderators seem to think this type of thing is so worshile, who am I to be a spoil sport about it?<br /><br />Something caught my eye in "Bigbrain's" prior thread. He states that any probe (since he will not specify a particular probe) would not be able to radio its position back to Earth as the probe would not have enough power. Specifically he states that:<br /><br />Suppose your probe can transmit a radio signal (really impossible: it has not enough power) to your control tower. <br /><br />Well it would now seem that we had better throw out all of the information ever received by ANY of the dozens of deep space probes that have ever been sent out from the Earth by not only the poor backward US, but ANYBODY else also!!!<br /><br />As there is no other possible means for communication with the Earth by any of these probes other than by radio waves (and none of them have enough power to do this) then obviously ALL information ever gotten for humanity by these probes is a made up lie!!<br /><br />I guess we will all just have to bow to the superior intellect and wisdom of this paragon of knowledge known as "Bigbrain"!!!<br /><br />Why do any of us mere mortals even bother to post on SDC??

 

[a_lost_packet_]

bigbrain<br /><br />According to your argument, rockets wouldn't fly, harrier jump-jets don't work and hovercrafts are a thing of fantasy. There are plenty of vertical take-off craft out there and certainly quite a few common toys that fly with the "gravity forces that have their pivot point in the rocket engine on the bottom." (Whatever that means.)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">bigbrain - The lunar module has a rocket engine on the bottom and gravity forces act above it and tend to turn it upside-down in all directions. </font><br /><br />Are you saying that gravity doesn't act on the rocket engine too? What about the thrust from the rocket? Does it only effect the rocket or does it also effect the rest of the equipment attached to it? What about gimbaled rockets? Do they not work either?<br /><br />Have some fun and go play the classic "Lunar Lander" game. Enjoy!<br /><br />Lunar Lander Game (classic) (Click the gamescreen to play.)<br /><br />P.S. Anyone else remember this classic?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>